This is usually the trend: misinformed criticism of leftist activism or culture result in high-profile strawman arguments in popular media, which activists take great glee in tearing down. Real issues go unsolved, and both left and right further cement themselves into ironclad camps.

Stanford shares details of early-admit class

Stanford has admitted 754 early applicants to the Class of 2015 and deferred about 500 more, Admission Director Bob Patterson said on Monday.

The University received a record-high 5,929 applicants, dropping the admission rate to 12.7 percent for Stanford’s “restrictive early-action program.” Applicants were up 6.5 percent from last year, when Stanford admitted 753 of its 5,566 applicants, or 13.5 percent. The University notified all early applicants of their application status via e-mail on Friday afternoon.

Montag Hall, home of the Office of Undergraduate Admission. (JING RAN/The Stanford Daily)

Director of Admission Bob Patterson, who joined Stanford this fall from UC-Berkeley, called the newly admitted students “truly exceptional.”

Of all the applicants, 723 participated in Stanford’s pilot interview program, in which alumni interview prospective students as part of their applications, Patterson said. The program expanded this year to include Washington, D.C., Maryland and Virginia, and the University trained more than 1,000 alumni to interview applicants.

This year about 7 percent of early-admit students are international, about 50 percent are students of color and about 10 percent would be first-generation college students, Patterson said, adding that those levels are roughly on par with last year.

A higher share of admitted students reported GPAs of 4.0 or higher, he said.

About 5 percent of admitted students this year will undergo random auditing, following a plan Stanford rolled out earlier this year to combat dishonesty among applicants. The Office of Admission will randomly select admitted students and verify their extracurriculars, 11th-grade transcripts and course in progress with their high schools, Patterson said. Auditing of early-admit students will take place in January and February and again later for regular-decision students.

“We trust students,” Patterson said. “We are just doing this for precautionary reasons.”

Dean of Admission Richard Shaw raised the possibility of audits in July, the month after reports that Stanford admitted alleged academic con artist Adam Wheeler. (The University later revoked Wheeler’s admission.) Shaw, declining to comment on the Wheeler case specifically, said Stanford was concerned with the “issue of dishonesty and forgery on the national level.” Patterson said in October the new system did “not have to do with” Wheeler but was in response to national admission groups calling for more scrutiny of applications.

Stanford is among the nation’s most selective universities, admitting 7.3 percent of applicants to the Class of 2014. The University expects 26,000 to 28,000 applications during its regular cycle this spring, Patterson said.

Regular applications are due Jan. 1 and decisions are released in late March. All applicants have until May 1 to respond.

Correction: In an earlier version of this story, The Daily incorrectly reported that out of the admitted students, 723 participated in interviews. In fact, of all early applicants, 723 participated in interviews.

It becomes clear under close observation that this entire program is less about recruiting the best and the brightest and more about fostering a misguided agenda. Over 2/3 of these admits got in because of what they are,not what they have achieved. It’s a racist policy and everyone knows it. Passing over some of the most brilliant minds in the country in favor of this is insanity.
Shaw should be audited.

@caltech ’74

I disagree with that. That is not racist. If you are referring to the 50% statistic… look at other schools in california who are on par with that statistic… other schools that accept people by “points” instead of holistically– it’s far more than 50% people of color.

If anything is racist, it’s that they had to mention that statistic at all.

@ @

Nice try,but I don’t buy it. Shaw has admitted that ethnicity,celebrity,legacy and major donors are the determining factors.

Fallacy

Because you’re a legacy/minority, you don’t deserve to get in on your own merit.

’74, you have NO idea how qualified the candidates are.

Jared

It’s not that the candidates are not qualified. It’s that SCEA/REA would give priority to rich black kid A given every opportunity with slightly lower scores, slightly less stellar essay, slightly lower gpa etc. etc. over poor white kid B.

Just a really stupid system. It’s even worse for poor black kid C – who has higher scores, better essay, etc etc. than both rich black kid A, poor white kid B, and rich white kid D – who is unfortunately grouped with rick black kid A based on the color of his skin.

If they just looked at a synthetic story told by the applicant in combination with the test scores and grades, they’d naturally get a diverse class. Instead, they draw in a bunch of rich squares and a few poor&middle class kids who are overwhelmingly outnumbered by their wealthy peers.

Alum

Stanford really shouldn’t have to rely on the early admissions crutch to fill a huge fraction of the class anymore.

Harvard and Princeton seem to get along without it, and Yale apparently talked us into the SCEA alternative just so they wouldn’t be all alone among the elites in needing a yield-boosting device.

Now that we seem to lose cross admits only to Harvard, perhaps we. too, can do away with early admissions and stop pretending that it really benefits anybody but the admissions office.

Maybe, as a result, Stanford will be viewed as no longer needing to rely on such a pathetic recruiting tool, pass Yale and Columbia, and become one of the “big three” in the USNews rankings.

Back in the day when Stanford was ranked at the top, it didn’t have any type of early admissions program!

Alum

Stanford really shouldn’t have to rely on the early admissions crutch to fill a huge fraction of the class anymore.

Harvard and Princeton seem to get along without it, and Yale apparently talked us into the SCEA alternative just so they wouldn’t be all alone among the elites in needing a yield-boosting device.

Now that we seem to lose cross admits only to Harvard, perhaps we. too, can do away with early admissions and stop pretending that it really benefits anybody but the admissions office.

Maybe, as a result, Stanford will be viewed as no longer needing to rely on such a pathetic recruiting tool, pass Yale and Columbia, and become one of the “big three” in the USNews rankings.

Back in the day when Stanford was ranked at the top, it didn’t have any type of early admissions program!

Alum

Stanford really shouldn’t have to rely on the early admissions crutch to fill a huge fraction of the class anymore.

Harvard and Princeton seem to get along without it, and Yale apparently talked us into the SCEA alternative just so they wouldn’t be all alone among the elites in needing a yield-boosting device.

Now that we seem to lose cross admits only to Harvard, perhaps we. too, can do away with early admissions and stop pretending that it really benefits anybody but the admissions office.

Maybe, as a result, Stanford will be viewed as no longer needing to rely on such a pathetic recruiting tool, pass Yale and Columbia, and become one of the “big three” in the USNews rankings.

Back in the day when Stanford was ranked at the top, it didn’t have any type of early admissions program!

@Fallacy

Wrong again,Fallacy. The goal should be to accept the MOST qualified, not the average qualified for a gimmick admission.

Alum

@Fallacy

The goal of what you call “gimmick admissions” is not to accept the “most qualified” or even the “average qualified” – but rather to goose the yield rate by admitting those most likely to enroll.

@alum

The operative word is ‘should’. But then,isn’t goosing the yeild rate a gimmick in and of itself?

Danny W

“Correction: In an earlier version of this story, The Daily
incorrectly reported that out of the admitted students, 723 participated
in interviews. In fact, of all early applicants, 723 participated in
interviews.”
So what’s the correction…?

http://twitter.com/GallagherBilly Billy Gallagher

Hey Danny, the correction is that those 723 participants were out of all people who applied early to Stanford, not out of all admitted students–e.g. all 723 were not necessarily admitted. Thanks for reading!

Dave P.

I’d rewrite the first two sentences for clarity:
The University received a record-high 5,929 restrictive early-action applicants this year, and admitted them at a rate of 12.7 percent. The number of applications rose 6.5 percent from last year, when Stanford admitted 753 of its 5,566 applicants, or 13.5 percent.